Why the American desire for happy endings?

[Disposable Hero]

Or to be more precise why do so many authors and movie-makers believe the American public wants happy endings because I'm sure they are plenty of Americans who can get on fine without them.

There are many examples of movies or books with their endings changed or reworked for an American audience to make them more upbeat, three that spring to mind are the movies Brazil and Army of Darkness (which also had one of the best lines changed!) and the novel Down to a Sunless Sea by David Graham (having only read the downbeat ending I'm not sure how it could be reworked to be more cheerful without losing the 'twist' ending) but there are plenty more examples. I'm just wondering why this is the case.

Just to add I'm not a fan of needlessly depressing endings myself but some stories do suit them.

[Jophiel]

In the case of movies, they get shown to test audiences. If the test audiences say "This sucks, we want the hero to fall in love and save the world" then that's what'll happen in the final cut, faithfulness to the source material be damned.

[Gyrate]

Because life is depressing enough.

[Acid Lamp]

Lots of reasons. For me, I tend to prefer happier endings because entertainment is escapist fantasy. Why would I want to spend two plus hours of my life being horrified and depressed? Enough of that occurs on its own in real life. I KNOW that terrible things are happening all around me, just watch the news. I want to be entertained.

[Alessan]

Why are we assuming that the American love of happy endings is the exception, rather than the rule? I'd like to see some cites.

[Mahaloth]

I didn't even know this was an American thing. I thought film-makers and authors all around the world made a lot of happy endings.

[ministryman]

Originally Posted by Gyrate

Because life is depressing enough.

+1.

Also, movies are an ESCAPE. If I want to see people die needlessly, unloved, unfed, and/or unwanted, I'll pick up a copy of the newspaper and save myself 10 bucks.

[Michael of Lucan]

Yes, it's not an American thing, it's a human desire.

Many people write sad books and sad films with deeply tragic endings, and reviewers often praise them for being artistic. Unfortunately, the ones with happy endings for the protagaonists usually sell most. Like all rules this has exceptions.

Only over-protected teenagers (and people who never had to grow up) enjoy wading in black sorrow. Most people see tragedy in their real lives, and they don't need to watch it or read it too.

I prefer to watch a "chick flick" than a horror film or one full of blood and guts. I've seen real people dying and got blood on my hands. Why would I want to watch some over-paid idiot faking it?

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Gyrate

Because life is depressing enough.

This.

Also, it makes tragedy and misery and evil in the bulk of the story less oppressive if I believe that there's going to be a happy ending or a facsimile of one. There's a payoff at the end where the hero(ine) finds their true love or nails the villain through the skull or whatever.

The exception being horror, where a "bad end" works fine because after all horror is the whole point.

[Arrogance Ex Machina]

Originally Posted by Michael of Lucan

Yes, it's not an American thing, it's a human desire.

And that's the truth because you said so? I've seen plenty of movies with less than happy endings and I've enjoyed a lot of them. I could buy that because I suffer from a mental disorder I don't count as a human in this context, but that would not explain why they keep on making movies and books with a spectrum of endings from horrible misery to insuling-shock inducing delirious happiness. There's hardly enough of my fellow loonies to be a viable target audience.

From my point of view, if every movie, book and TV series always ends happily there's a lot less suspense over the fate of the protagonists. If you know everybody'll live happily ever after, where's the tension?

[Princhester]

Originally Posted by Michael of Lucan

Yes, it's not an American thing, it's a human desire.

I'm not at all convinced that it is not an American thing. Sure, a significant proportion of audiences the world over like happy endings, but I have never heard of a French or Australian or British or Spanish film being recut to give it a happy ending because the producers or a test audience didn't like the sad. One hears it of American movies all the time. I'm hardly an authority so if you have evidence to the contrary, I'm happy to hear it.

Many people write sad books and sad films with deeply tragic endings, and reviewers often praise them for being artistic. Unfortunately, the ones with happy endings for the protagaonists usually sell most.

And I think this is the reason that it is an American phenomenon. Much of the rest of the world has more of an artist culture which says that art and artists must be respected, but America has more of a money culture which says "fuck that, if we make it a happy ending we'll make more money".

[JRDelirious]

Originally Posted by Michael of Lucan

Many people write sad books and sad films with deeply tragic endings, and reviewers often praise them for being artistic. Unfortunately, the ones with happy endings for the protagaonists usually sell most. Like all rules this has exceptions.

Only over-protected teenagers (and people who never had to grow up) enjoy wading in black sorrow.[...]

I prefer to watch a "chick flick" than a horror film or one full of blood and guts. I've seen real people dying and got blood on my hands. Why would I want to watch some over-paid idiot faking it?

You point out an important distinction -- tragedies have a long tradition as a highly respected literary form, but they are tragedies because the story and characters are, well, tragic, and that does NOT mean just that the protegonists suffer great pain or end up dead or homeless or crushed by the State or whatever. It's hard to do well and to get a good audience response.

[Anaamika]

For all you people who prefer happy endings, I'm with you. I really am. But sometimes it really does damage the source material to tack a happy ending. It is very difficult to find any movie of I Am Legend with the correct ending, and I really wanted to see it. The book was dark and a shocker and hard to read but I loved everything it made me feel.

Sometimes it is more important to have a complete ending than a happy ending, and I feel in our never-ending quest for happy endings, we lose sight of that sometimes.

Often the "happy ending" is totally tacked on, and sometimes comes out of nowhere. Pair the spares is a good example...really, those people would not have gotten together if the author didn't feel it necessary.

But then when they go to tragedy they go way too far in the other direction, so I am with you guys.

[Alka Seltzer]

I think the OP is complaining about films with tacked-on happy endings, at odds with the rest of the story, rather than feel-good films as a genre. An operatic version of Romeo and Juliet was given a happy ending, which may have slightly undermined it as a tragedy. It's not respectful to the source materiel or the audience to change the author's intent like this. Schindler's List would not be improved by a dance scene at the end. There Will be Blood ends with:

SPOILER:

Daniel Planview beating the priest to death.

It's the right ending, it would be wrong if:

SPOILER:

He was reconciled with his adopted son.

There is nothing wrong with feel-good endings. However, it would be pretty ghastly if every story was conceived with escapism as the only goal. A good film is an immersive experience, and emotionally engaging. Storytelling can and should encompass the full range of human experiences. However, there is a fine line between genuine drama and melodramatic schlock.

[jjimm]

Originally Posted by Princhester

And I think this is the reason that it is an American phenomenon. Much of the rest of the world has more of an artist culture which says that art and artists must be respected, but America has more of a money culture which says "fuck that, if we make it a happy ending we'll make more money".

The way I've always understood it, some countries, especially in continental Europe, have state-funded arts grants for making movies. The filmmakers and 'investors' are therefore not terribly worried about the box office, so they work with not-necessarily 'popular' themes, constructions - and endings.

The end result is usually a whole heap of pretentious dreck that nobody ever watches, and the occasional gem that surpasses all expectations and conventions.

Which raises an interesting dilemma: while the free market drives innovation and development in a commercial sense, in an artistic sense it seems to be counterproductive - why invest in a superlative script, characterization and amazing acting when you can CGI in a load of explosions instead? It is, after all, what the masses demand.

[Disposable Hero]

Originally Posted by Alka Seltzer

I think the OP is complaining about films with tacked-on happy endings, at odds with the rest of the story, rather than feel-good films as a genre.

Yes, that's what I meant, I like feel-good films as much as the next ruggedly handsome Irishman. For example Independence Day wouldn't really have worked with a 'everyone dies' ending because that wasn't the tone of the film but depending on how it was done the Spielberg War of the Worlds movie may have been able to get away with one (yes I'm aware the ending in the film is directly from the original book).

I was a little reluctant to post this thread because I knew it would likely get peoples backs up but it is something I've wondered about.

Originally Posted by Alessan

Why are we assuming that the American love of happy endings is the exception, rather than the rule? I'd like to see some cites.

Well I think the three examples I mentioned in the OP could work as cites, as far as I'm aware all three had different endings for the American audience than that for the international audience.

Originally Posted by Gyrate

Because life is depressing enough.

I agree to an extent, I don't like much of contemporary or recent British science-fiction because of its oppressive and depressing cynicism about reality and human nature.

Stephen Baxter, I'm looking at you.

[Ferret Herder]

A small correction: Brazil was released in the US theaters without the happy ending. The happy ending version (called the "Love Conquers All" version) was shown on US TV. The studio fought hard to get the happy ending, but Gilliam fought back and managed to get his version to the theaters via his own promotional campaign stirring up positive press - among other methods, he conducted unauthorized private screenings for reviewers.

Personally, Brazil is among my favorite films, and I think the ending actually is happy, in that it is the best possible ending for that character which is believable.

I agree with the theory that movies being a big money-making industry may affect this more than anything else. I wonder - I know many Bollywood films are more "sanitized" and light than many American films... do they have a tendency toward happy endings for financially-driven reasons?

[minlokwat]

A perfect example is the movie The Vanishing.

Question: Do I have to spoiler box this? If the original came out in 1988 and the remake, eight years ago, has the statute of spoiler limitations expired? Stop reading now because I am going to talk about the ending(s).

*
*
*
*


The European version ends on down note (literally) with the boyfriend being buried alive and the bad guy coming out on top (sorry). If you look beyond that though, the film explores the wrenching psychological torture the boyfriend endured as he searched for years for his girlfriend. In the end he insists that he has to know what actually happened to her and the villain obliges.

In the American version, all that is done away with. The boyfriend (Keiffer Sutherland) escapes the burial, hunts down the bad guy (Jeff Bridges who had adopted some unidentifiable pseudo-European accent) and chops his head off. I’m surprised the filmmakers didn’t bring back the vanished girl friend (a then unknown Sandra Bullock).

I would have to postulate that the filmmakers decided American audiences wouldn’t understand the psychological nuances of the protaginist’s struggle, couldn’t have evil triumphing over good, and had to have a more proper resolution to the conflict. If you compare the two versions there is no comparison. The Dutch film is a taut character study that explores the thought process of hero and antagonist. The American version is utter crap, a by-the-numbers, soulless psycho-thriller that has to qualify as one of the worst remakes ever. It didn’t have to be that way.

[garygnu]

Originally Posted by Disposable Hero

...For example Independence Day wouldn't really have worked with a 'everyone dies' ending...

I know plenty of people who would have liked that ending better.

[Justin_Bailey]

Originally Posted by Disposable Hero

There are many examples of movies or books with their endings changed or reworked for an American audience to make them more upbeat, three that spring to mind are the movies Brazil and Army of Darkness (which also had one of the best lines changed!)

But with Army of Darkness, the studio was right. The apocalypse ending is dumb. And the new ending gave us "Hail to the king, baby" and "Yo, she-bitch!"

[cmyk]

Because the good guys have to win, and live, for the sequel.

[Capitaine Zombie]

Originally Posted by Anaamika

For all you people who prefer happy endings, I'm with you. I really am. But sometimes it really does damage the source material to tack a happy ending. It is very difficult to find any movie of I Am Legend with the correct ending, and I really wanted to see it. The book was dark and a shocker and hard to read but I loved everything it made me feel.

Sometimes it is more important to have a complete ending than a happy ending, and I feel in our never-ending quest for happy endings, we lose sight of that sometimes.

Often the "happy ending" is totally tacked on, and sometimes comes out of nowhere. Pair the spares is a good example...really, those people would not have gotten together if the author didn't feel it necessary.

But then when they go to tragedy they go way too far in the other direction, so I am with you guys.

When I read the O.P. from outside, I instantly thought of "I am a Legend". God, not only was the last adaptation stupid as hell (who had the genius idea of using CGIs to do the closest-to-human-and-cheapest-to-have-monsters-of-all: the Vampire/zombie?!!) but it's like it completely failed at understanding the original plot. The epilogue is like a big fuck you to Matheson and the hordes of people that have read (and understood) the story.

It does sounds like an American thing, both in its necessary triumph of the hero or the consumer "feelgood' dictatorship.

Originally Posted by jjimm

The way I've always understood it, some countries, especially in continental Europe, have state-funded arts grants for making movies. The filmmakers and 'investors' are therefore not terribly worried about the box office, so they work with not-necessarily 'popular' themes, constructions - and endings.
The end result is usually a whole heap of pretentious dreck that nobody ever watches, and the occasional gem that surpasses all expectations and conventions.

State sponsorship is very low in percentage in the financing of most Euro movies, especially commercial ones. TVs tends to be the major sponsors.
The major difference isnt that much in who pays the bills (in both Euro and US cases , it's essentially the private sector) but who has the final cut. In the US the movie belongs to the producer, he is the one that shows up on stage to get the Best Movie award, and most of all he is the one that decides which version of the movie gets released.
That's the essential point.

[Ferret Herder]

The same director made both versions of The Vanishing, but I personally haven't read whether he wanted to make a "happy ending" remake, whether he wanted a big US hit and so gladly made it a happy ending, or if the studio pressured him.

Considering that it only made $14 million and I'm sure that the stars involved did not come too cheaply, plus the reviews sucked, this was a misstep. US reviews for the release of the original were full of praise.

[Boyo Jim]

This thread brings L.A. Confidential to mind. The movie doesn't have a typical happy ending, but it's a lot happier than the end of the book. And the whole nature of the book changed in the screenwriting process. The movie was about three cops finding redemption, while in the book they never even look for it. It's about the only example I can think of with the book and movie versions being so vastly different, but each still managing to be great on its own terms.

[silenus]

If I'm paying for it, there better be a happy ending.

[Laughing Lady]

Uhm, I think paying for happy endings is a whole other thread.

[Thudlow Boink]

Considering how often movies are watched by people on a date, I wonder if there's a correlation between the happiness of the ending of the movie and the chance of "getting lucky" afterward.

[Knorf]

Apparently, a whole lot of people do not understand or have never experienced catharsis, which good tragedies can provide.

But I find it interesting that pampered Americans--in a very wealthy society where every need is taken care of in abundance for almost everyone--are the most disinclined to enjoy tragedies with whines of "life is depressing enough." Whereas, in Shakespeare's day (for example), during which I time I think it would be very hard to argue that life wasn't a great deal shittier than it is now, tragedies were widely enjoyed.

[Tom Scud]

Originally Posted by Jophiel

In the case of movies, they get shown to test audiences. If the test audiences say "This sucks, we want the hero to fall in love and save the world" then that's what'll happen in the final cut, faithfulness to the source material be damned.

Incidentally, test audiences don't always push that way - I can think of one instance where they insisted on a less happy ending (Terminator 2, where the original ending was a multi-decade flash-forward explaining how Skynet never happened and everyone was happy).

[Markxxx]

At one time the American movies basically self-censored themselves and this may have had something to do with it.

For instance, characters were not supposed to do bad things without getting punished for them. So often in a book an intentional killing was changed to an accidental killing.

This reminds me of one of my favourite books, A Tree Grows In Brooklyn, where the main character Francie, expresses her dissatisfaction with the fact, the hero always arrives in the nick of time to "save the day." Then she tries to rewrite the play realistically, where the hero doesn't show up, and the heroine is given 30 days eviction notice and has to taken in washing and her kids have to go get jobs, etc...

[Anaamika]

Originally Posted by Knorf

Apparently, a whole lot of people do not understand or have never experienced catharsis, which good tragedies can provide.

But I find it interesting that pampered Americans--in a very wealthy society where every need is taken care of in abundance for almost everyone--are the most disinclined to enjoy tragedies with whines of "life is depressing enough." Whereas, in Shakespeare's day (for example), during which I time I think it would be very hard to argue that life wasn't a great deal shittier than it is now, tragedies were widely enjoyed.

A) Yes, we do know about catharsis, but we don't need it all the time. It's there for when we need it, but unnecessary tragedy does not feel like catharsis to me, it just feels like unneccessary tragedy. That movie Slumdog Millionaire - those things that happened to that kid happen to people in India, but rarely do they all happen to one person. Just keep tacking on tragedies and I don't believe you anymore.

B) So just because our life is better than Shakespeare's time means we have nothing to be sad about? Life is depressing enough. The media focuses on the worst things. We hear about rapes and pedophilia like we never did. I don't believe it happens more, it's just that we never would have heard the gory details of gang rapes of thirteen year old girls at one time. And it doesn't even apply to our personal lives, which as you say, are supposed to be good and wonderful - which causes even more dissonance when they are not. I have a fairly peaceful life, but all around me both of our families are going through seriously troubled times. It isn't always happy-go-lucky just because we have material possessions.

[PlainJain]

If everyone dies, there can be no sequel.

[woodstockbirdybird]

Originally Posted by Knorf

Apparently, a whole lot of people do not understand or have never experienced catharsis, which good tragedies can provide.

But I find it interesting that pampered Americans--in a very wealthy society where every need is taken care of in abundance for almost everyone--are the most disinclined to enjoy tragedies with whines of "life is depressing enough." Whereas, in Shakespeare's day (for example), during which I time I think it would be very hard to argue that life wasn't a great deal shittier than it is now, tragedies were widely enjoyed.

I'm with you. "Life is depressing enough"? I'd be willing to bet nearly everyone saying this is privileged by any reasonable standard - food, shelter, cable and internet, disposable income, and enough leisure time to enjoy it. A good percentage of those are probably in healthy relationships, and also have friends and family there for support. Life can be occasionally depressing, but for the most part, I just see this as people with out-of-whack perspectives.

And I hate tacked-on happy endings.

[newcomer]

I think it’s because American film is totally market oriented packaged product and in order to generate profit film needs to be seen by majority of the movie going audience. As opposed to say, European films that rely on elaborate funding schemes based on taxpayer money.

So I trust the guys who invest money in a project and they do their research on what kind of movies most people want to see (which is “happy-ending” movies). Which reminds me of this exchange from The Player:

Griffin Mill: It lacked certain elements that we need to market a film successfully.
June: What elements?
Griffin Mill: Suspense, laughter, violence. Hope, heart, nudity, sex. Happy endings. Mainly happy endings.
June: What about reality?

Now, one might argue that there are some notable examples that do not follow the formula and I agree. However, part of the mystique of movies where main protagonist dies in the end (my favourite example: “American Beauty”) is that they are rare in the sea of “happy-ending” movies.

[Thudlow Boink]

Here's one WAG/theory, though I'm not sure to what extent I myself buy it:

Americans' objection to unhappy endings isn't because they're unhappy, but because they're endings. Americans, with their can-do attitude, see unhappiness as a problem to be solved, not a fate to be accepted. They have no problem watching movie characters in miserable, difficult, unpleasant, or tragic circumstances, but they want to see how they then go on to deal with those circumstances.

[Great Antibob]

How is this even really an American phenomenon in any media?

Doesn't anybody remember Great Expectations? Even Charles Dickens was hounded to provide a slightly less downer ending for his story.

[Acsenray]

Originally Posted by Ferret Herder

I agree with the theory that movies being a big money-making industry may affect this more than anything else. I wonder - I know many Bollywood films are more "sanitized" and light than many American films... do they have a tendency toward happy endings for financially-driven reasons?

The bulk of Bollywood productions -- meaning the Hindi-language popular/commercial movie industry -- is absolutely calculated to cater in every single way to popular tastes, which includes happy endings and every other lowest-common-denominator characteristic. Occasionally, a more "serious" movie is produced but they are rarely commercially successful. The same is true of the Tamil and Telegu-language movie industries.

In India, non-popular movies are considered part of what is called the "parallel" cinema industry, which includes the bulk of critically acclaimed movies, such as Bengali-language films (Satyajit Ray, etc.). They have a much narrower audience and generate far less revenue than the big three (Hindi, Tamil, and Telegu).

[Baron Greenback]

Originally Posted by Disposable Hero

the novel Down to a Sunless Sea by David Graham (having only read the downbeat ending I'm not sure how it could be reworked to be more cheerful without losing the 'twist' ending)

The edition I read had an epilogue (tacked onafter the twist ending) in which the British and Russian pilots are the last two left. They drive out onto the ice and meet God,in a very clumsy Adam and Eve style. Mind, that was a British edition.

[Alessan]

American audiences don't always demand happy endings - they're often perfectly satisfied with bittersweet endings, too. Just look at some of the most popular movies ever: Casablanca; Gone with the Wind; the Godfather; and anything from John Ford. Or more recent examples: Titanic, E.T., the Dark Knight; Forrest Gump; the Toy Story movies;and the Lord of the Rings movies. Tearjerkers have always been popular with the American public.

I think the defining characteristic of mainstream American stories isn't that the good guys live happily ever after - audiences don't necessarily need that. What they do want, however, is that the bad guys not win. Even Shakespeare followed that rule: in any of his tragedies, did the villains ever come out ahead?

[Knorf]

Originally Posted by Anaamika

A) Yes, we do know about catharsis, but we don't need it all the time. It's there for when we need it, but unnecessary tragedy does not feel like catharsis to me, it just feels like unneccessary tragedy. That movie Slumdog Millionaire - those things that happened to that kid happen to people in India, but rarely do they all happen to one person. Just keep tacking on tragedies and I don't believe you anymore.

"All the time"? Really? You see Hollywood bombarding the theaters with tragedies?

Ok. So, if a modern version of "Hamlet," or "Oedipus Rex," or "The Scarlet Letter" is made, you advocate changing the ending? So people don't have to feel sad? 'Cause, sadness is bad, mmmkay.

B) So just because our life is better than Shakespeare's time means we have nothing to be sad about? Life is depressing enough. The media focuses on the worst things. We hear about rapes and pedophilia like we never did. I don't believe it happens more, it's just that we never would have heard the gory details of gang rapes of thirteen year old girls at one time. And it doesn't even apply to our personal lives, which as you say, are supposed to be good and wonderful - which causes even more dissonance when they are not. I have a fairly peaceful life, but all around me both of our families are going through seriously troubled times. It isn't always happy-go-lucky just because we have material possessions.

You really think that hearing more information about suffering elsewhere in the world than used to be possible (if that's even true; I actually doubt it) is worse than, or even as bad as, living in the kind of suffering that most people faced in Shakespeare's day? Recreational outrage is really suffering, huh? Here's an idea: you can live your pampered life in a first-world, 21st century nation and stop reading all the stories about gang rapes and such. Turn off the news. Cancel your newspaper subscription. In other words, if that is what is causing you misery--other people's suffering--you have complete control of eliminating its effect on your life. That was a bit harder to accomplish in other times and places than it is now, don't you think?

[Enderw24]

Originally Posted by Knorf

But I find it interesting that pampered Americans--in a very wealthy society where every need is taken care of in abundance for almost everyone--are the most disinclined to enjoy tragedies with whines of "life is depressing enough." Whereas, in Shakespeare's day (for example), during which I time I think it would be very hard to argue that life wasn't a great deal shittier than it is now, tragedies were widely enjoyed.

The reason Shakespeare's tragedies were so popular was because the tragedies happened to the elite and ruling class and the plays were shown to the general public. It's like reading the Enquirer or watching Real Housewives.
"oh boo hoo. Some stupid Danish prick's life is sooooo terrible. All he can do is whinge about his life of luxury. You want tragedy? It's me determining if next year's rain will get me the crops I need to feed my family or whether they die of influenza, not whether my mom's boinking my uncle. Man, I hope they kill every one of these stupid SOBs in this play."

[bump]

Originally Posted by minlokwat

I would have to postulate that the filmmakers decided American audiences wouldn’t understand the psychological nuances of the protaginist’s struggle, couldn’t have evil triumphing over good, and had to have a more proper resolution to the conflict.

I suspect that the perception of what a movie-watching experience is, may be very different between Europe and the US, and the endings reflect that.

I really doubt it came down to a "Europeans = sophisticated and nuanced, Americans = simple and stupid" decision.

I think the thought process went more like this:

"Hmm... Americans go to the movies on Friday nights for entertainment. They're going to be irritated (and rightly so) if they go to the movies with their girlfriend/wife/boyfriend/etc... buy cokes and popcorn, and see the protagonist get buried alive and the bad guy win."

Having evil win just doesn't play well with cokes and popcorn and a date on Friday nights or Saturday matinees.

[Alessan]

Don't Europeans mostly watch American movies these days?

[Kimstu]

Originally Posted by Disposable Hero

There are many examples of movies or books with their endings changed or reworked for an American audience to make them more upbeat

Originally Posted by newcomer

I think it’s because American film is totally market oriented packaged product and in order to generate profit film needs to be seen by majority of the movie going audience. As opposed to say, European films that rely on elaborate funding schemes based on taxpayer money.

I think newcomer (and jjimm previously) nailed the main point here. AFAICT, the only practical reason to distribute a non-American film (or produce an American remake of a non-American film) in America, with its huge movie audience potential, is to make as much money as possible.

And if that's your goal, you might as well go to the extra trouble of tweaking the last fifteen minutes or so of the film to maximize its appeal to the greatest number of potential American audience members and get more butts in theater seats.

I suspect (on the basis of zero actual evidentiary data, mind you) that if European filmmakers typically tried out their films on the same sort of mass-consumption test audiences that the American movie industry relies on so heavily, they would find a similar popular preference in their own cultures for happy endings. But they seem to have a little more latitude within their film industries in controlling the trade-offs between creative vision (or artistic merit, or whatever you want to call the basic concept behind the attitude "this choice may not be as popular with audiences but I think it makes the movie better") and commercial marketability.

But if the filmmakers are then going to go to the trouble of trying to sell their films to American audiences too, that's a marketing decision, so it makes sense to pay more attention to commercial marketability for the American distribution.

[Justin_Bailey]

Originally Posted by Alessan

Don't Europeans mostly watch American movies these days?

Yes: http://boxofficemojo.com/intl/

And they're typically dubbed to boot!

[Alka Seltzer]

Originally Posted by Alessan

Don't Europeans mostly watch American movies these days?

In the UK, most of the top-grossing films come from Hollywood. I can't find any figures, but I think this is true throughout most of Europe as well.

As others have pointed out, the tacked-on happy ending is not solely an American phenomenon. Conan Doyle brought Sherlock Holmes back from the dead due to popular demand, which is a similar kind of thing. However, the studio culture is very strong in American US and TV.

Originally Posted by Anaamika

That movie Slumdog Millionaire - those things that happened to that kid happen to people in India, but rarely do they all happen to one person. Just keep tacking on tragedies and I don't believe you anymore.

Slumdog Millionaire is not a tragedy. The blurb on the DVD box says "the feelgood film of the decade", it's a romantic film with many moments of comedy. There is terrible suffering, but the main characters overcome it all to be reunited, and it ends in a big dance number. It's not meant to be a realistic film (very few are), it's more of a fable. It uses the conceit of the questions to tell the story of a life in flashbacks, and to explore some of the dark side of India. I can understand why you didn't like it, but it's not a good example in this thread. It's not a tacked on happy ending, it's very much part of the film.

Tragedy is not just about catharsis. Romeo and Juliet die, but their families are reconciled. We are left sadder and wiser, it's one of the humanising stories. There is a big difference between tragedy (things fall apart, but are worth struggling for) and nihilism (life is meaningless).

I certainly wouldn't want the majority of films I watch to be tragic, but I wouldn't want to feed only on popcorn either.

[msmith537]

I would disagree with the OPs premise. Here are the top 50 grossing films and a summary of their endings:

1 Avatar Happy
2 Titanic Sad
3 The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King Bittersweet
4 Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest Happy
5 Toy Story 3 Didn't See)
6 Alice in Wonderland Happy
7 The Dark Knight Tortured Superhero Ending
8 Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone To be continued
9 Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End Bittersweet
10 Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 To be continued
11 Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix To be continued
12 Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince To be continued
13 The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers To be continued
14 Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace Lame
15 Shrek 2 Happy
16 Jurassic Park Happy (but cautionary)
17 Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire To be continued
18 Spider-Man 3 Sad
19 Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs Happy
20 Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets To be continued
21 The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring Sad / To be continued
22 Finding Nemo Happy
23 Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith NOOOOOOOOO!
24 Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen Happy
25 Inception Ambiguous
26 Spider-Man Happy
27 Independence Day Happy
28 Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (Didn't See)
29 Shrek the Third (Didn't See)
30 Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban To be continued
31 E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial Bittersweet
32 Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull Happy
33 The Lion King Happy
34 Spider-Man 2 Tortured Superhero Ending
35 Star Wars Happy
36 2012 Happy
37 The Da Vinci Code Happy
38 Shrek Forever After (Didn't See)
39 The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe Happy
40 The Matrix Reloaded To be continued
41 Up Bittersweet
42 The Twilight Saga: New Moon (Didn't See)
43 Transformers Happy
44 The Twilight Saga: Eclipse To be continued
45 Forrest Gump Bittersweet
46 The Sixth Sense WHHHHAAAATT!!??
47 Ice Age: The Meltdown (Didn't See)
48 Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl Happy
49 Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones To be continued
50 Kung Fu Panda Happy


Certainly a lot of happy endings for mostly Disney and mindless action movie fare.
Some sad endings.
A lot of open ended clifhanger endings with the franchises.
A couple "and that is why I am cursed with awesomeness" superhero endings.
A lot of the bittersweet "we saved the world but at what horrible cost" endings.
And a few I couldn't categorize.

[Snooooopy]

Originally Posted by Justin_Bailey

But with Army of Darkness, the studio was right. The apocalypse ending is dumb. And the new ending gave us "Hail to the king, baby" and "Yo, she-bitch!"

And the way he delivers "Lady, I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to leave the store" is just priceless.

[NDP]

Originally Posted by Alessan

American audiences don't always demand happy endings - they're often perfectly satisfied with bittersweet endings, too. Just look at some of the most popular movies ever: ... the Godfather.

The Godfather does not have a bittersweet ending. It and Godfather II are about the steady erosion of Michael's soul as he takes control of the "family."

Originally Posted by msmith537

5 Toy Story 3 (Didn't See)
...

29 Shrek the Third (Didn't See)

5 Toy Story Bittersweet
...

29 Shrek the Third Happy

[Alessan]

Originally Posted by NDP

The Godfather does not have a bittersweet ending. It and Godfather II are about the steady erosion of Michael's soul as he takes control of the "family."

I'd say that Part 1, in and of itself, can be seen as having a bittersweet ending. Yes, we see Michael begin to lose his soul, but we're also rooting for him to take out his enemies. It's only after Part 2 that it comes across as the beginning of a full-blown tragedy.